Search results

Thanks for the clear answer in the first paragraph, which seems to confirm what I stated in my question: The age of R1a is different from R1b, though unknown. But I disagree with the second paragraph. As I understand it the TMRCA of R1 is the date that the first split from R1 happened, i.e when...

Thanks for the clear answer in the first paragraph which seems to confirm what I stated in my question: the age of R1a and Rb1 are different, though unknown. But I disagree with the second paragraph. As I understand it the TMRCA of R1 is the same as the age of the *oldest* of R1a and R1b, the...

But is it really that simple? Supposedly it took about 4000 years from R1 appeared until it split into R1a and R1b. And a similar amout of time from R* appeared until it split into R1 and R2.

The thing is, I1 didn't, as you say, split from I2. They both split from I*, and this happened through two different mutations (or sets of mutations). The same with R1a and R1b, they both split from R1* through two different mutations. That is why I ask, could these mutations have happened at...

Question: Did the mutations that define haplogroups R1a and R1b both happen at the same time? In other words, do R1a and R1b necessarily have the same age? I asked this question before in the R1a group, but no one seems to have a good answer. I ask because every age estimate I have seen gives...

I don't think it can be that simple. According to the age estimates provided at this site, it took about 4000 years from Y-haplogroup R appeared until it split into R1 and R2, and about the same time before R1 again split into R1a and R1b. This is why I started thinking that maybe R1a and R1b...

This sounds reasonable, but I don't think it is that simple. Look at Y-haplogroup R, according to the estimates shown on this site it took about 4000 years from it appeared until it split into R1 and R2, and about 4000 years again until R1 split into R1a and R1b. This is why I started to think...

I understand that, but in the case you describe only R1a (or R1b) will exist, while the remaining men with haplogroup R1 will still have the same haplogroup R1. The mutation(s) necessary for starting up the R1b (or R1a) lineage will happen at a later, unknown time. Or am I missing something?

If R1a and R1b split from R1 at the same time, it seems that the two mutations that define R1a and R1b (M420 and M343 respectively) must have both happened at the same time. This seems very improbable. Don't you agree?

Question: Did the mutations that define haplogroup R1a and R1b both happen at the same time? In other words, do R1a and R1b necessarily have the same age? I ask because every age estimate I have seen gives the same age for both (e.g. 22,800 YA). But couldn't R1b have split off first, and the...